ecount_server_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only status query ('조회'), specifies the data it returns, and notes '인자 없이 호출합니다' (no arguments). While it doesn't explicitly state side effects, the nature of the tool implies no mutation, and the detail is sufficient for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: four short sentences in Korean, each providing necessary information (purpose, content, usage context, no-arg requirement). No wasted words, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what data it exposes (rate limit, error counters, cache, version), when to use it, and that it requires no arguments. There is no missing information needed for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description explicitly states '인자 없이 호출합니다' (call with no arguments). This matches the baseline for 0 params and adds clarity by preempting any assumption of inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'MCP 서버 내부 상태 조회' (query MCP server internal status), and lists specific items (Rate Limit 현황, 에러 카운터, 캐시 상태, 서버 버전). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle business operations like products, sales, and inventory.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'API 호출이 차단되거나 느린 원인을 파악할 때 사용합니다' (use when API calls are blocked or slow). This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, which is acceptable for a diagnostic tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.